5 ms·

California decided to pay peoples' back rent recently. I'd guess the people that made sacrifices to keep paying rent instead of YOLOing it on call options are a

California decided to pay peoples' back rent recently. I'd guess the people that made sacrifices to keep paying rent instead of YOLOing it on call options are a bit miffed that they kept paying, but at least the California government is using some of its Fed pandemic money to pay the landlords that were forced to provide free housing.

epicureanideal 5y ago
Yeah, I wish the government would stop pumping up the moral hazard. Basically responsible action is punished and YOLOing is rewarded… until some unknown date when it suddenly isn’t.
- burnished 5y ago
  Of the people who couldn't afford, how many do you think were YOLOing as opposed to just plain old screwed? Basically, why focus on fictional people that are living in a way you find morally dubious, instead of the very real people living below the poverty line and struggling to keep a roof over their head?
  - epicureanideal 5y ago
    Anecdotally I've heard from plenty of people that they have strategies like putting minimum down on a house so they can walk away from it if the market crashes, as a lesson from 06-07. I suspect plenty of people learned lessons from the last crash about moral hazard and are doing whatever they can, for example not paying rent as long as possible just because they can, and then when the crash happens they'll buy a house or meanwhile it might be in Robinhood. The poor aren't stupid. They can figure out schemes and strategies just as well as Wall Street, they just have less opportunity in most circumstances.
    - burnished 5y ago
      You're talking to people who can put a down payment on a house. I question if we're talking about the same groups of people. That wouldn't fit my own internal standard for 'poor', you know?
  - mrguyorama 5y ago
    It's literally "Welfare queens" all over again, because how dare somebody be happy without working harder than I do
    - burnished 5y ago
      Don't forget a side of "if you have less than I do its because you're less deserving"!
    - epicureanideal 5y ago
      > how dare somebody be happy without working harder than I do I'm all for people being happy and especially for people being more successful while working less, as long as the "less work" means higher effective productivity per hour, or a choice to be happy by some other means. The problem is when policy transfers wealth from people who do work to people who don't. Then the person isn't happy because of their own choices or more effective or better chosen efforts, it's just a transfer of happiness from a responsible person to someone who may or may not be.
      - burnished 5y ago
        > The problem is when policy transfers wealth from people who do work to people who don't. Why is it that this line is brought up when it might be a poor person getting a hand out but never when it is a rich person being given a hand out? You'd think the focus would be on stopping the ultra-wealthy from draining the rest of society with their out-sized influence, not weighing the hearts of the poor against a feather.
        epicureanideal 5y ago
        Oh I'm all for the rich not getting handouts either. I'm equally or more bothered by that. Both have the effect of harming the professional, responsible, hard working, broader middle class. And even hurting the professional, responsible, hard working, working poor. Because if you're working really hard for $10/hr and someone else is getting a handout, that means you have nothing extra to show for your efforts except exhaustion at the end of your day.

epicureanideal 5y ago

Yeah, I wish the government would stop pumping up the moral hazard. Basically responsible action is punished and YOLOing is rewarded… until some unknown date when it suddenly isn’t.

burnished 5y ago
Of the people who couldn't afford, how many do you think were YOLOing as opposed to just plain old screwed? Basically, why focus on fictional people that are living in a way you find morally dubious, instead of the very real people living below the poverty line and struggling to keep a roof over their head?
- epicureanideal 5y ago
  Anecdotally I've heard from plenty of people that they have strategies like putting minimum down on a house so they can walk away from it if the market crashes, as a lesson from 06-07. I suspect plenty of people learned lessons from the last crash about moral hazard and are doing whatever they can, for example not paying rent as long as possible just because they can, and then when the crash happens they'll buy a house or meanwhile it might be in Robinhood. The poor aren't stupid. They can figure out schemes and strategies just as well as Wall Street, they just have less opportunity in most circumstances.
  - burnished 5y ago
    You're talking to people who can put a down payment on a house. I question if we're talking about the same groups of people. That wouldn't fit my own internal standard for 'poor', you know?
- mrguyorama 5y ago
  It's literally "Welfare queens" all over again, because how dare somebody be happy without working harder than I do
  - burnished 5y ago
    Don't forget a side of "if you have less than I do its because you're less deserving"!
  - epicureanideal 5y ago
    > how dare somebody be happy without working harder than I do I'm all for people being happy and especially for people being more successful while working less, as long as the "less work" means higher effective productivity per hour, or a choice to be happy by some other means. The problem is when policy transfers wealth from people who do work to people who don't. Then the person isn't happy because of their own choices or more effective or better chosen efforts, it's just a transfer of happiness from a responsible person to someone who may or may not be.
    - burnished 5y ago
      > The problem is when policy transfers wealth from people who do work to people who don't. Why is it that this line is brought up when it might be a poor person getting a hand out but never when it is a rich person being given a hand out? You'd think the focus would be on stopping the ultra-wealthy from draining the rest of society with their out-sized influence, not weighing the hearts of the poor against a feather.
      - epicureanideal 5y ago
        Oh I'm all for the rich not getting handouts either. I'm equally or more bothered by that. Both have the effect of harming the professional, responsible, hard working, broader middle class. And even hurting the professional, responsible, hard working, working poor. Because if you're working really hard for $10/hr and someone else is getting a handout, that means you have nothing extra to show for your efforts except exhaustion at the end of your day.